I have really missed the bus on this one. I had meant to write on the IRS 2008 (Round 2) soon after it was released – but got caught up in my travels. Meanwhile, the ‘Romantic Realist’ and many others have literally beaten me to the post (Read RR’s Blog Post "I am No 1. No, I am No 1" in the MINT by clicking here). I had written much of my thoughts on Readership Surveys in India in 2 of my earlier Blogs Is it only about Eye-balls? and When adults act as kids. At a broader level, my views remain largely the same as I have also noted in my comments on RR’s piece (Read Comments at the bottom of RR's Blog by Clicking here).Co-incidentally just the day before its release (on the 4th of Nov), I was chatting up a friend who has been on the Technical Committee of the IRS (MRUC) for many years. He made several very pertinent and interesting points. Here is a gist of our discussions.
Since the MRUC started as an initiative of Advertisers and Media Agencies (Brahm Vasudeva and Roda Mehta were the prime movers) – the IRS was conceived primarily as a Media Planning Tool. Therefore, the emphasis was not so much on the absolute “results” but more on the quality of the “research” – and, therefore, the underlying data, which would provide users insights for their media planning.
However, publishers has come to see it more like marks scored in a school or college examination – therefore, go to extra-ordinary lengths to ensure better “results” – especially after the NRS went into hibernation and IRS became the primary currency for print-media.
It’s common knowledge in the industry that, most organizations have their own “experts” ( read ‘fixers’) – who claim to be ‘specialists’ or past-masters at obtaining better results for their respective publications. Apart from using – old tricks of the trade such as distributing free copies around the time when the field work is conducted (this was developed to the level of a fine art with the level of sophistication that was applied to specially target areas where the survey was known to be happening - with information gathered thru’ moles in the data collection agencies), over time this was carried to a higher level with more blatant tampering of data. Industry insiders tell tales of instances – when field researchers have been apprehended ‘selling’ survey forms or caught in fisticuffs with goons engaged by publishers trying to obtain . While that could well be malicious gossip, it is widely believed that large media houses have a substantial ‘budget’ allocated for ‘managing’ – Readership Results – just as they were known to do for ABC numbers. (Click here to read Pramath Sinha’s piece published sometime ago in the MINT)
However, MRUC officials and the Research Agencies will vouch for the overall validity of the data. They claim to have built in a system of checks and balances that easily throw up aberrations during the process of data validation. In every survey – there are cases where a ‘back-check’ has been ordered or the data for certain publications have been withheld for publication – until the verification was carried out.
But in their over anxiety to obtain higher numbers, publishers often lose sight of more important underlying data. Moreover, in the process they also end up undermining the credibility of the survey – forcing Media planners and buyers to resort to developing their own customized metrics – which, with very small sample sizes, have their own set of limitations, claims of “proprietary” methodology notwithstanding.
It’s another typical case of shooting the messenger. So, what’s the way forward? The industry is already clamouring for the revival of their abandoned child the NRS. But, is there any reason to believe that- the NRS would produce results that are dramatically different from the IRS. Past experience doesn’t say so. It’s like me going to a different ‘Path Lab’ each time to check my Lipid Profile. It still doesn’t solve my problem of high Cholesterol and elevated hepato-bilary markers.
More later…..
